@linux_mclinuxface This is to be expected, considering that most "open source" supporters have never seen the; https://opensource.org/osd

Additionally, the OSI has not approved any creative commons license, as those licenses are not suitable for software.

Most people look at "open source" and it assume it means that the source code is publicly available (there is no good way to explain why it's more than that, as describing the 10 requirements takes far too long).

Of course, people have gone and stretched the term so far it snaps and use it to refer to "participatory" situations, which are in fact extremely proprietary and will continue to do so, as people almost never call them out.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html


People may assume free software means software you can get gratis, but once you tell them that free means freedom and request they think before believing what advertisers tell them, they won't make the same mistake again: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms